{"id":344566,"date":"2024-09-25T17:24:29","date_gmt":"2024-09-25T15:24:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=344566"},"modified":"2024-09-25T17:24:31","modified_gmt":"2024-09-25T15:24:31","slug":"scotus-must-stop-climate-extortion-lawfare","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=344566","title":{"rendered":"SCOTUS Must Stop Climate Extortion\u00a0Lawfare"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Science Matters <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By\u00a0Ron Clutz<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Jon Decker explains what\u2019s at stake in the case awaiting US Supreme Court consideration.  His Real Clear Markets article is The Supreme Court Must Stop Climate Extortion Schemes.<\/strong><\/a>  Excerpts in itallics with my bolds and added images.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chevron recently announced that it is moving out of California<\/strong> after almost a century and a half in the state. No wonder, since Sacramento sued the company<\/strong>, along with a number of other oil companies, for allegedly deceptive practices.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In their war on energy, progressive politicians increasingly turn to lawfare as another scheme to extract funds from productive citizens<\/strong> and dramatically reshape the economy. In the coming weeks, we\u2019ll learn if the Supreme Court will stand up to them.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The critical case is Sunoco v. Honolulu, currently pending before SCOTUS<\/strong>. Honolulu is suing several oil companies, alleging<\/strong> their fossil fuel production caused significant damage to the city through rising sea levels and other climate-related infrastructure issues.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

That these companies are being sued<\/strong> not for specific instances of purported environmental harm, but instead under \u201cpublic nuisance\u201d and \u201cconsumer fraud\u201d laws for an alleged \u201cmulti-decadal campaign of deception\u201d about the nature of their products<\/strong> is crucial. That\u2019s because it lets progressive cities and states get around long-standing legal doctrine that kept climate cases in federal courts,<\/strong> where defendants are somewhat likelier to get a fair hearing.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Knowing that federal environmental law presents a more difficult path for litigation<\/strong>, activists instead went \u201cvenue shopping\u201d with their climate agenda to deep blue states,<\/strong> knowing that a multi-jurisdictional assault<\/strong> would be unworkable, and potentially fatal, for American energy companies.<\/strong> The progressive politicians who support this approach not only see a boost for their careers and fundraising goals, but a potentially massive source of new government revenue.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Because Honolulu, like a spate of other lawsuits driven by ambitious progressive state AGs and prosecutors, models its assault<\/strong> on energy companies on the 90s tobacco wars<\/strong>. And they are unsurprisingly seeking an eye-watering settlement similar to what the tobacco industry was forced to pay (dollars that still flow to the government to this day).<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

But you don\u2019t have to be a fossil fuel corporate booster or a climate change skeptic to recognize that these paydays will come at the expense of ordinary consumers and taxpayers, and of the economy as a whole.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fossil fuels are ubiquitous in every sector, from agriculture and clothing to steel production, electricity, heating, and transportation. If this lawfare succeeds then every single one of these products and services\u2014anything that takes energy as an input\u2014becomes more expensive.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

There\u2019s also a kind of incoherence to the idea that a small handful of companies are alone to blame<\/strong> for perceived climate ills. What about the thousands of companies worldwide that are involved in the exploration, production, and distribution of fossil fuels \u2013 or the millions of companies that use fossil fuels to make their own goods and perform their services? That\u2019s not even to mention the fact that the same few energy companies<\/strong> now being sued also play a critical role in the U.S. leading the world in CO2 emission reductions,<\/strong> through greater adoption of natural gas. How do the companies spearheading the natural gas renaissance figure into the supposed \u201cdeception\u201d at work here?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The stakes here remind us that judges\u2014and therefore elections\u2014matter. Hawaii Supreme Court Chief Justice Mark Recktenwald,<\/strong> who ruled in favor of Honolulu and thereby triggered SCOTUS review, has been<\/a> associated with the far-left Environmental Law Institute\u2019s (ELI) Climate Judiciary Project,<\/strong> a group that \u201ctrains\u201d and \u201ceducates\u201d thousands of judges and government lawyers across the country to deliver legal outcomes favored by progressives.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Supreme Court may be the last line of defense against
fringe activists dictating energy policy for the rest of us.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

But of course, SCOTUS itself is in the crosshairs of left-wing judicial scheming<\/strong>, with top Democrats, including presidential nominee Kamala Harris, threatening to pack the Supreme Court if elected. No doubt with judges in the Mark Recktenwald mode.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

If Honolulu succeeds<\/strong> in its case, and progressives in their larger campaign of lawfare, Americans can say Aloha to higher prices.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Postscript on Arguing Deception in These Cases<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

As noted above, the rationale for filing these cases in state rather than federal courts depends on claiming consumer fraud, I.e. oil companies deceived the public while knowing about their damaging energy products.  A good rebuttal against the \u201cExxon Knew\u201d fiction is provided (with my bolds) by Randal Utech at Master Resource<\/strong><\/a>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

To say that Exxon knew the truth<\/strong> back in the early 80s is a laughable fallacy<\/strong>. Effectively they built a primitive model<\/strong> that is characteristically similar to the erroneous modern climate models of today.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fundamentally their work is based on the poorly understood climate sensitivity (ECS)<\/strong> derived from radiative convective models and GCM models. To their credit, they actually acknowledged the high degree of uncertainty in these estimations.<\/strong> Today, even Hausfather (2022 vs 2019) is beginning to understand the climate sensitivity (ECS) is too high. CMIP6 is running still even hotter than CMIP5<\/strong> and using ECS of 3 to 5\u00b0 C rather than ~ 1.2\u00b0 C as highlighted in Nick Lewis\u2019s 2022 study<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

CMIP6 should have been better because it incorporated solar particle forcing (Matthes et. al.<\/a>) and as they incorporate more elements of natural forcing<\/strong> (an active area of research as we still do not have a predictive theory for climate), the effect is highlighting more underlying problems with the models.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, Exxon investigators fell into the same trap that climate modelers of today where they build the models to history match temperatures and then<\/strong> wow, because they can create a model that appears to history match temperatures, they assume it is telling them something.<\/strong> Truth? Anyone can create a model to do this, but it would never mean the model is correct. While the models today are much more complex, they are based on a complex set of non-linear equations, and the understanding of the various sources of nonlineararity is poor.<\/strong> This opens up wide degrees of uncertainty yet wide opportunity for tuning. Furthermore, natural forcing is undercharacterized and deemed inconsequential.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The contrived sense of accomplishment in history matching is spurious correlation for an infinitesimally small period of time. Using Exxon\u2019s internal analysis of CO2 climate forcing is little more than a propaganda tool.<\/strong> Current climate models, much more sophisticated, face the same problem of unknown, false causality.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

See Background Post:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
19 State AGs Ask Supremes to Block Climate Lawsuits<\/a><\/blockquote>